If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

There is no question that this President wants to fundamentally change this country. He has said as much and his actions really do not leave much doubt. Depending on what side of the fence you sit, it can be argued, that this is a good thing or a bad thing but it would be the highest form of naivety, in my opinion, to believe that this President has anything but contempt for those that don't share his view of the world.
Why on earth would I hope a President who's policies and views are almost diametrically opposed to what I believe in succeed?

And that is why we will see the Second American Revolution... hopefully on both sides of the asile.

There is no question that this President wants to fundamentally change this country. He has said as much and his actions really do not leave much doubt. Depending on what side of the fence you sit, it can be argued, that this is a good thing or a bad thing but it would be the highest form of naivety, in my opinion, to believe that this President has anything but contempt for those that don't share his view of the world.
Why on earth would I hope a President who's policies and views are almost diametrically opposed to what I believe in succeed?

Efforts to fundamentally change our country began in 1994 with a "Contract With America" that helped Republicans gain control of Congress. However, the contents of the Contract had nothing to do with the revolution beyond helping to gather votes. Nothing was ever done to implement it. Instead, what we saw was the remaking of the Republican Party into the "anti" party: anti-tax (not anti-deficit), anti-liberal, anti any social programs developed since the Depression and, above all else, anti-Clinton because he had successfully co-opted Republican commitments to fiscal conservatism.

The efforts succeeded in many ways. In large part this was because of scorched earth tactics that reflected an attitude that the country was only worth saving if it reflected the narrow minded image of an increasingly conservative leadership. In part, it also reflected the view of many good citizens that we were straying too far from some of our core values as a country. But the fundamental strategies followed by the Republican leadership were flawed and left our country economically and diplomatically worse off, a fact obvious to the majority of voters.

As a consequence, the pendulum began to swing back with the Democratic congressional victories in 2006 and the Presidential election in 2008. Hopefully, the moderates of both parties will reject the partisan extremes of both. For now, however, the right wing of the GOP is trying to knock off moderate Republicans so that conservatives will be the only alternative offered to Obama in 2010. The reality is that victories by moderate Republicans would do more damage to conservative hopes than Democratic victories because that could swing the entire center of the Party toward the middle.

On the Democratic side, there are also some interesting developments. The more liberal end of the party is battling what they view as the turncoats in the Senate who are opposing a public option in the health bill. On this issue, as on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama has been moving more and more to the center, dismaying the progressives who believed they owned his presidency. In his efforts on the economy, health care, and the wars, Obama has clearly decided to back burner a number of other priorities that are important to the left. Both the left and the Republican right are hoping to push the administration to confront these issues now: the left to take advantage of current voting strength and to flush out what they view as the "DINO's" (Democrats in name only), and conservatives in an effort to marginalize the administration as battles for the 2010 Congress heat up.

The next few months, as the administration deals with the economy, health care, and Afghanistan will be critical. To succeed, the administration needs to avoid being diverted from these core issues. It needs a quick victory on health care even if that requires a 50+1 vote in the Senate and a tight battle in the House confronting Obama against Pelosi. From a political perspective, anything Obama does on Afghanistan will result in major political problems since there are no good answers that are possible. As a consequence, he has to make a decision and campaign to sell it to the people.

On the economy, what Obama needs more than anything else is time. While doomsayers like Goose are crying that unemployment will mount to 20% or more, and liberal Dem's are hoping for another round of massive public spending plus tax cuts to make their election campaigns easier, more moderate voices are noticing that almost none of the capital spending portion of the stimulus bill has been implemented yet. Those funds will kick in on an accelerating basis over the next six months, helping the economy.

The greatest fear of Republicans is that by the time the campaign heats up unemployment is likely to be declining, consumer confidence increasing (probably not reflected in consumer income), and the DOW will probably be over 10,000. On one hand, Republicans will focus on the deficit. However, at the same time they will be proposing policies that would do nothing except increase the deficit even more. In the elections themselves, I expect that there will be small to moderate Democratic losses with continued Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. Both sides will declare victory.

When the dust settles, the country will not have been radically changed in any direction -- toward the right or toward the left.

Efforts to fundamentally change our country began in 1994 with a "Contract With America" that helped Republicans gain control of Congress. However, the contents of the Contract had nothing to do with the revolution beyond helping to gather votes. Nothing was ever done to implement it. Instead, what we saw was the remaking of the Republican Party into the "anti" party: anti-tax (not anti-deficit), anti-liberal, anti any social programs developed since the Depression and, above all else, anti-Clinton because he had successfully co-opted Republican commitments to fiscal conservatism.

The efforts succeeded in many ways. In large part this was because of scorched earth tactics that reflected an attitude that the country was only worth saving if it reflected the narrow minded image of an increasingly conservative leadership. In part, it also reflected the view of many good citizens that we were straying too far from some of our core values as a country. But the fundamental strategies followed by the Republican leadership were flawed and left our country economically and diplomatically worse off, a fact obvious to the majority of voters.

As a consequence, the pendulum began to swing back with the Democratic congressional victories in 2006 and the Presidential election in 2008. Hopefully, the moderates of both parties will reject the partisan extremes of both. For now, however, the right wing of the GOP is trying to knock off moderate Republicans so that conservatives will be the only alternative offered to Obama in 2010. The reality is that victories by moderate Republicans would do more damage to conservative hopes than Democratic victories because that could swing the entire center of the Party toward the middle.

On the Democratic side, there are also some interesting developments. The more liberal end of the party is battling what they view as the turncoats in the Senate who are opposing a public option in the health bill. On this issue, as on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama has been moving more and more to the center, dismaying the progressives who believed they owned his presidency. In his efforts on the economy, health care, and the wars, Obama has clearly decided to back burner a number of other priorities that are important to the left. Both the left and the Republican right are hoping to push the administration to confront these issues now: the left to take advantage of current voting strength and to flush out what they view as the "DINO's" (Democrats in name only), and conservatives in an effort to marginalize the administration as battles for the 2010 Congress heat up.

The next few months, as the administration deals with the economy, health care, and Afghanistan will be critical. To succeed, the administration needs to avoid being diverted from these core issues. It needs a quick victory on health care even if that requires a 50+1 vote in the Senate and a tight battle in the House confronting Obama against Pelosi. From a political perspective, anything Obama does on Afghanistan will result in major political problems since there are no good answers that are possible. As a consequence, he has to make a decision and campaign to sell it to the people.

On the economy, what Obama needs more than anything else is time. While doomsayers like Goose are crying that unemployment will mount to 20% or more, and liberal Dem's are hoping for another round of massive public spending plus tax cuts to make their election campaigns easier, more moderate voices are noticing that almost none of the capital spending portion of the stimulus bill has been implemented yet. Those funds will kick in on an accelerating basis over the next six months, helping the economy.

The greatest fear of Republicans is that by the time the campaign heats up unemployment is likely to be declining, consumer confidence increasing (probably not reflected in consumer income), and the DOW will probably be over 10,000. On one hand, Republicans will focus on the deficit. However, at the same time they will be proposing policies that would do nothing except increase the deficit even more. In the elections themselves, I expect that there will be small to moderate Democratic losses with continued Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. Both sides will declare victory.

When the dust settles, the country will not have been radically changed in any direction -- toward the right or toward the left.

This is so typical of a MOR egghead. "I want everyone to love me, because I'm a moderate, and I'm open minded...far more than anyone else that is so opinionated and are so wrong minded...blah, blah, blah".

The Contract for America was an excellant program...but failed in the most important point: the inability to get term limits imposed on the nationally elected representatives and senators. Without that, the 'people' that the Constitution was written for, are NOT in power.

Concerning your inane observation of why the pendulum began swinging in the Democrat's favor because we all wanted less conservatism and felt the liberals had better ideas is preposterous. Most of us knew the consequences of an Obama regime...such as removal of right-to-work laws, paying for the Algore fiasco, and government takeover of healthcare, and we held our nose while we pulled the lever for a candidate that your ilk selected through the MSP. Conservatism had NO presidential candidate!

It's understandable how you can't see the erosion of this nation's freedoms, because you are in favor of that legislation. So you see why I'm not angry with the likes of the Obama thugs in power, that's what they do! I'm only angry with you and your hypocrite 'moderate' friends that think they can pick and choose which freedoms we should not be concerned about losing. It angers me to watch such a crowd of toady yahoos sucking up and falling on the sword for this batch of facists you have put in power.

As to that final statement about the dust settling and no 'radical' changes being made...ARE YOU SERIOUS??? Unfortunately, like all your sheeple buddies, I fear you are. But that comment does expose all your bloviating as being pure sophistry; your hubris in attempting to make everyone believe you are so moderate is phony. You indeed are a complete big-government socialist. Obama ubber alles! You must be proud!

UB

When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

I generally, actually, agree with what you say, though perhaps I am not quite as optimistic.

Case in point: I think a huge proportion of us have been pretty dumb as citizens the past decade or more, and I think that we ALL have to be a whole lot smarter if we're going to improve our collective lot and not tear each other apart over false issues.

I would like to see, as one of the first steps, a collective cry of outrage over poor media coverage of real issues, and a genuine respect and support for reporters who are actually attempting to uncover truths.

I don't know if the politicians are architects... or pawns... or something else, perhaps some of them even something good. Or maybe not.

Getting at the truth about the financial world and how it really works, and where and how and why it intersects with the political world--THAT is a topic worthy of some serious non-partisan investigation and reporting, IMO.

Amen on all that. Instead of having a press that is a voice box for the government and whatever it says, it is time we recognize and reward the true journalists who go further and dig deeper into issues that concern all of us.

I would say we were closer under the prior administration, but no American government has even come close. On those occasions when we have played at the fringes, the impetus has generally come from the right: e.g., Joe McCarthy and the House un-American Activities Committee during the 1950's

The way to devour an elephant without anyone noticing is a couple of bites per day

Concerning your inane observation of why the pendulum began swinging in the Democrat's favor because we all wanted less conservatism and felt the liberals had better ideas is preposterous. Most of us knew the consequences of an Obama regime...such as removal of right-to-work laws, paying for the Algore fiasco, and government takeover of healthcare, and we held our nose while we pulled the lever for a candidate that your ilk selected through the MSP. Conservatism had NO presidential candidate!

I actually said that the pendulum began swinging back because of Bush's complete failure as a President. I don't think it mattered who ran as the Republican candidate in 2008, but I suspect that McCain did better, by far, than any other candidate that might have been named. Remember, McCain became the GOP candidate because none of the others could win votes from other Republicans.

Originally Posted by Uncle Bill

It's understandable how you can't see the erosion of this nation's freedoms, because you are in favor of that legislation. So you see why I'm not angry with the likes of the Obama thugs in power, that's what they do! I'm only angry with you and your hypocrite 'moderate' friends that think they can pick and choose which freedoms we should not be concerned about losing. It angers me to watch such a crowd of toady yahoos sucking up and falling on the sword for this batch of facists you have put in power.

I assume by "erosion of ... freedoms" you are talking about the provisions of the so-called Patriot Act. Or maybe you are talking about warrantless eavesdropping on telephone conversations. Oh sorry, that was a different administration and they were allowed to pick and choose out freedoms. By "crowd of toady yahoos sucking up...", I assume you are talking about the large majority of voters who elected Obama as President. I guess they didn't fall on their swords fast enough for your tastes. And here we go with the term "fascist" again. A thread was started asking exactly what is meant by this. Maybe you should post a response there. As far as i can tell from the way you use the term, it means anyone who disagrees with you.

Originally Posted by Uncle Bill

As to that final statement about the dust settling and no 'radical' changes being made...ARE YOU SERIOUS??? Unfortunately, like all your sheeple buddies, I fear you are. But that comment does expose all your bloviating as being pure sophistry; your hubris in attempting to make everyone believe you are so moderate is phony. You indeed are a complete big-government socialist. Obama ubber alles! You must be proud!

UB

Obviously, once again, the term radical is defined by perspective. I tend to measure it in contrast to where we are and where we have been, you seem to measure it relative to your own very radical beliefs. Relative to things this country has done and believed since 1930, little that Obama has proposed looks very radical. Even with respect to taxes, nothing he has proposed would leave taxes higher than they were following Reagan's tax cuts -- was Reagan a socialist? The plan proposed for health care is, in many ways, less radical than what was done with Medicare, which has proven to be one of the most popular of government programs. With respect to calling me, or anyone else, a socialist, I again suggest that you post your definitions on the thread started for that purpose.

As for the first sentence of your post, it is hard for me to feel insulted by being called a middle of the road egghead. I could care less what you think of me. And yes, I do think I am more moderate and open minded than you.

I actually said that the pendulum began swinging back because of Bush's complete failure as a President. I don't think it mattered who ran as the Republican candidate in 2008, but I suspect that McCain did better, by far, than any other candidate that might have been named. Remember, McCain became the GOP candidate because none of the others could win votes from other Republicans.

I assume by "erosion of ... freedoms" you are talking about the provisions of the so-called Patriot Act. Or maybe you are talking about warrantless eavesdropping on telephone conversations. Oh sorry, that was a different administration and they were allowed to pick and choose out freedoms. By "crowd of toady yahoos sucking up...", I assume you are talking about the large majority of voters who elected Obama as President. I guess they didn't fall on their swords fast enough for your tastes. And here we go with the term "fascist" again. A thread was started asking exactly what is meant by this. Maybe you should post a response there. As far as i can tell from the way you use the term, it means anyone who disagrees with you.

Obviously, once again, the term radical is defined by perspective. I tend to measure it in contrast to where we are and where we have been, you seem to measure it relative to your own very radical beliefs. Relative to things this country has done and believed since 1930, little that Obama has proposed looks very radical. Even with respect to taxes, nothing he has proposed would leave taxes higher than they were following Reagan's tax cuts -- was Reagan a socialist? The plan proposed for health care is, in many ways, less radical than what was done with Medicare, which has proven to be one of the most popular of government programs. With respect to calling me, or anyone else, a socialist, I again suggest that you post your definitions on the thread started for that purpose.

As for the first sentence of your post, it is hard for me to feel insulted by being called a middle of the road egghead. I could care less what you think of me. And yes, I do think I am more moderate and open minded than you.

there's a lot of bitterness and loathing in so many of the posts on this forum, but when someone says one of them is aligning with the extreme right or left media, they always deny it.

Don't think there is a whole lot of denying anything as far as left or right is concerned.

most of the country is trying to work towards bettering our lot. a few want to lob rocks over the fence they themselves have made.

Bettering our country.....you actually think thats the motivation of this congress/admin? What flavor is your kool-aid>

like it or not, the President was elected by popular and electoral vote. i believe he will try to do the best he can for our country. some here seem to think he is the architect of some diabolical plot to ruin our nation. at least that's what you infer.

Yup, thats what we see happening.....the Congres is run amok and this guy is in way over his head.

we are all Americans and we're all human. we have much more in common than we have differences. i wish everyone here would acknowledge that and work towards a better future rather than sit on the sidelines and hope we fail.-Paul

How sweet of you Paul....sit on the sidelines with the biggest government takeover is in progress? Supposed the folks back in 1775 did the same thing? Hope we fail? Not on your life...thats what all the hell raising is all about.